Ward, R (on the application of) v Portsmouth Crown Court & Anor [2005] EWCA Civ 603 (10 May 2005)

Ward, R (on the application of) v Portsmouth Crown Court & Anor [2005] EWCA Civ 603 (10 May 2005)

There was no material distinction between the applicant's and Mr Boxall's cases, and remittal for re-trial was just; Mr Boxall had no legitimate interest in Mr Ward's judicial review; Customs and Excise were appropriately made interested parties; and the costs order was within the judge's discretion given the applicant's conduct.

Citation
[2005] EWCA Civ 603
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Ward; Defendant/respondent: Portsmouth Crown Court; Defendant/respondent: Commissioners of Customs and Excise; Interested Party: Kenneth Boxall
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 May 2005
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Application for Permission to Appeal From High Court (administrative Court) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Applications for permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Forfeiture of Goods, Burden of Proof, Costs Orders
Administrative Law Customs Law Civil Procedure Judicial Review Forfeiture of Goods Burden of Proof Costs Orders

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ward

Claimant/appellant

Portsmouth Crown Court

Defendant/respondent

Commissioners of Customs and Excise

Defendant/respondent

Kenneth Boxall

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Application for Permission to Appeal From High Court (administrative Court) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the case should have been remitted for re-trial
  2. 2 Whether Mr Boxall should have remained an interested party
  3. 3 Whether Customs and Excise should have remained as defendant

Ratio Decidendi

There was no material distinction between the applicant's and Mr Boxall's cases, and remittal for re-trial was just; Mr Boxall had no legitimate interest in Mr Ward's judicial review; Customs and Excise were appropriately made interested parties; and the costs order was within the judge's discretion given the applicant's conduct.

Court Disposition

Applications for permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused to Mr Ward
  • Permission to appeal refused to Mr Boxall